Tag: George-Bush

Share this:

The Dreamhost outage yesterday is now resolved. Four separate issues all came to light at roughly the same time, taking a good portion of Dreamhosts services offline. I personally assumed the Dreamhost outage was due to the poor connectivity between Level3 and Internap lastnight. See this image:

It doesn’t sound like the Dreamhost issues had anything to do with their connectivity providers, but I’m glad they’re back up and running. I wonder who Dreamhost gets their connections from, probably a few different providers.

Is the Dreamhost outage the cause for high search rankings of “World War III” on Technorati? No, but it is pretty amusing that Dreamhost is one of the top technorati searches. It somehow doesn’t fit in with the rest of the top searches: “World War III”, “Lebanon”, “Israel”, and of course, “Bush”. Where’s “Hezbollah”?? heh.

Like this:

Share this:

Valerie Plame has filed a lawsuit against Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. She and husband Joe Wilson are claiming their exposure was intentional and malicious, and was done in an attempt to destroy their careers. Here’s a bit from the article at CNN:

The lawsuit accuses Cheney, Libby, Rove and 10 unnamed administration officials or political operatives of putting the Wilsons and their children’s lives at risk by exposing Plame.

“This lawsuit concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of … (Plame), whose job it was to gather intelligence to make the nation safer and who risked her life for her country,” the Wilsons’ lawyers said in the lawsuit.

Libby is the only administration official charged in connection with the leak investigation. He faces trial in January on perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges, accused of lying to FBI agents and a federal grand jury about when he learned Plame’s identity and what he subsequently told reporters.

All those sites have all the details, I won’t bother re-stating the facts. I’m not really sure how I feel about this, but it seems like something Valerie and Joe wouldn’t want to get themselves into voluntarily. Won’t this additional attention just put them and their family at greater risk?

Share this:

In a White House that had virtually forgotten what good news looks like, the past few weeks have been refreshing. A Republican won a much-watched special congressional election. President Bush recruited a Wall Street heavy hitter as Treasury secretary. U.S. forces killed the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. And now the architect of the Bush presidency has avoided criminal charges.

The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a big one. That guy has been responsible for so much violence in Iraq, it’s great seeing him bite the dust.

With Zarqawi dead, a new Baghdad government in place and Rove freed from prosecutor’s cross hairs, the White House hopes it can pivot to a new stage in which it is no longer on the defensive. In recent weeks, under new Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, the White House has tried to do more to set an agenda, moving aggressively into the immigration debate and agreeing to join direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program under certain conditions.

Anyway, Bush made a “secret” visit to Iraq yesterday. Some think he may be laying the groundwork for troop reductions in Iraq. I don’t really see that though. To me it seems to be more of a pep-rally sort of thing. Bush was there letting everyone know that we need to stay until the job is done. Or at least until the Iraqi forces are able to handle the insurgents on their own. Even when the Iraqi forces are ready, we should still maintain a military force in the country, just to ensure the job is done right. It’d be terribly depressing if the country fell into a civil war or something once the U.S. packs up and leaves. In my eyes, we need to have a decent number of troops there for the next 50 years, just to protect our investment. “Our investment” being the nation of Iraq itself, not their oil.

Flopping Aces has some nice pictures and a video. Hot Air also has the video and a link to the transcript from Bush’s speech.

Share this:

In a joint news conference, Bush said he had used inappropriate “tough talk” — such as saying “bring ’em on” in reference to insurgents — that he said “sent the wrong signal to people.” He also said the “biggest mistake” for the United States was the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, in which guards photographed themselves sexually tormenting Iraqi prisoners, spawning revulsion worldwide. “We’ve been paying for that for a long period of time,” he said.

George Galloway used this as an opportunity to attack Tony Blair, saying “it would be entirely logical and explicable” for him to die via suicide bomber. Galloway is obviously off his rocker. The fact that he even suggests a suicide bombing to kill Blair is sick. Let’s face it, suicide bombings are a pretty sleazy and cowardly way to take a life.

The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.

In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: “Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber – if there were no other casualties – be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?”

Mr Galloway replied: “Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it – but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq – as Blair did.”

Whose side are you on Galloway? Wait, I don’t think you should answer that. Decision ’08 asks a good question, “George Galloway: Human Or Snake?”

Sister Toldjah is wondering if Galloway can be censured in front of the Parliament for his remarks. I would certainly think so, wether any action is actually taken against Galloway is probably up for debate.

Like this:

Share this:

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU.
Our erstwhile and dearly beloved President Bush, having found one of his testicles behind the couch, FINALLY gets around to attempting to begin to consider taking the correct course of action by deploying 6000 National Guard Troops to aid ICE in securing our Southern Border in Name Only (SBNO) and the ACLU races with all haste to try to undermine the deployment by whining incessantly and lying to the American people.

“Oh-ho” you say, along with “Kender? How can you say that the ACLU is LYING to the goodly citizens of the United States?”

Here’s how, and as usual, it is attributable to The Queen of the ACLU, The Beauty of the Bill of Rights, the Nancy of the Nine Amendments (ask him, there is no Second Amendment) Anthony Romero:

“Turning immigration enforcement policy into another military operation is not the answer. The president’s proposed deployment of National Guard troops violates the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from getting into the business of civilian law enforcement.

I made it real big so you would catch it, but how many of you actually caught it?

Actually the question should be how many of you even know about it?

SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Let me repeat that.

except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress;

Got that? Never mind the fact that the since the Posse Comitatus Act is an AMERICAN LAW it should logically only apply to AMERICAN CITIZENS!!!!! But applying our laws to criminal aliens is a fight that the ACLU has won….for the moment.

But we all know that where the ACLU is concerned logic has nothing to do with it.

I propose the radical concept that it is SPECIFICALLY the job of the federal government to secure the border, and if we need National Guard Troops to accomplish that goal then that is what needs to get done. If these millions of criminal aliens were coming across with guns and in uniform would the ACLU demand that Bush not send the military to stop the invasion?

I bet they would.

In WW2 the current ACLU would have been suing the government for placing anti-aircraft guns on the coast (many of those were placed on private property with the owners blessings) and demanding that blackout rules be abolished because forcing one to turn out the lights during a possible air raid would put them in danger of tripping on something in the dark, thereby depriving them of their right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Of course, the ALCU is more than happy to let someone pursue their personal happiness in the dark, often times even when it involves children, but that is a rant for another day.

The fact of the matter is that the government has failed us by refusing to secure the border, and we have been invaded. The ACLU is doing everything in their power to stop the government from doing ITS’ JOB and in the process making us all a little less safe with each and every day that goes by.